`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 20, 2012
`
`Title: System and Method for Inspecting
`Dynamically Generated Executable Code
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-01979
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) objects under the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to the admissibility of the following
`
`exhibits submitted by Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) in support of its Patent Owner
`
`Response: Ex. 2002, the Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic (“Medvidovic
`
`Declaration”); Ex. 2004,
`
`the Declaration of S.H. Michael Kim (“Kim
`
`Declaration”); Ex. 2009, Definition of kernel32.dll; Ex. 2011, Wikipedia definition
`
`of type signature; Ex. 2012, Microsoft webpage regarding Detours; and Ex. 2013,
`
`the Stackoverflow webpage.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner served its Patent Owner’s Response on July 12, 2016. Paper
`
`No. 22. Petitioner’s objections are timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). By
`
`serving these objections on Patent Owner, Petitioner reserves its right to file
`
`motions to exclude these exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I. MEDVIDOVIC DECLARATION (EX. 2002)
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the Medvidovic Declaration under
`
`FRE 702 because it contains opinions that are conclusory, do not disclose
`
`supporting facts or data, or are based on unreliable facts, data, or methods. For
`
`example, Dr. Medvidovic opines that certain Websense products are covered by
`
`claims of the ’154 patent based on his review of Patent Owner’s made for litigation
`
`infringement contentions. Ex. 2002, ¶129. Furthermore, several of the infringement
`
`charts relied on by Dr. Medvidovic cover only a subset of the claims at issue in this
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`IPR. Exs. 2015-17. Accordingly, the opinions contained in the Medvidovic
`
`Declaration are not based on sufficient facts or data, and are not the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods and should be excluded under FRE 702. Exs. 2002-
`
`03. Dr. Medvidovic is also unqualified as an expert to provide opinions from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, rendering the Medvidovic
`
`Declaration inadmissible under FRE 702. The Medvidovic Declaration also
`
`contains opinions that are irrelevant, confusing, and of minimal probative value
`
`under FRE 401, 402, and 403. Finally, the Medvidovic Declaration relies on
`
`exhibits that are inadmissible and unreliable for the reasons set forth below.
`
`II. KIM DECLARATION (EX. 2004)
`
`Petitioner objects to the Kim Declaration because it does not introduce
`
`evidence of Mr. Kim’s personal knowledge of the subject matter of the testimony
`
`contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under FRE 602. For
`
`example, the Kim Declaration states that Mr. Kim has been IP counsel at Patent
`
`Owner since March 2015, yet Mr. Kim testifies regarding events that occurred
`
`prior to that date without showing how Mr. Kim gained personal knowledge of
`
`those events. In addition, the Kim Declaration contains testimony regarding the
`
`terms of several Patent Owner license agreements, but Mr. Kim was not part of the
`
`negotiation or execution of the licenses. The Kim Declaration produces no
`
`evidence of Mr. Kim’s personal knowledge of these licenses.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`The Kim Declaration is also inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`The Kim Declaration is also inadmissible under FRE 401, 402, and 403 as
`
`irrelevant, prejudicial, misleading, and of minimal probative value.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admissibility of the Kim Declaration under FRE
`
`702. The Kim Declaration offers inadmissible expert testimony because the
`
`opinions contained in his Declaration are conclusory, do not disclose supporting
`
`facts or data, are biased and unreliable, and the Kim Declaration provides no basis
`
`to support Mr. Kim’s qualifications as an expert. Accordingly, Mr. Kim’s opinions
`
`are inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`III. KERNEL32.DLL (EX. 2009)
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the “kernel32.dll” article under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 703. Patent Owner improperly relies on the kernel32.dll article to
`
`support the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the 2005 timeframe, but
`
`the kernel32.dll article is a webopedia.com definition retrieved on July 12, 2016.
`
`Ex. 2009. Accordingly, it is irrelevant and not the type of evidence reasonably
`
`relied upon by a person of ordinary skill during the relevant time period. The
`
`kernel32.dll article is also inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802, and lacks
`
`authentication under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`IV. WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF TYPE SIGNATURE (EX. 2011)
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the Wikipedia “definition of type
`
`signature” under FRE 401, 402, and 703. Patent Owner improperly relies on the
`
`Wikipedia definition of type signature to support the understanding of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the 2005 timeframe, but the Wikipedia definition of type signature
`
`was retrieved on July 12, 2016 and last modified on June 17, 2016. Ex. 2011.
`
`Accordingly, it is irrelevant and not the type of evidence reasonably relied upon by
`
`a person of ordinary skill during the relevant time period. The Wikipedia definition
`
`of type signature is also inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802, and lacks
`
`authentication under FRE 901.
`
`V. MICROSOFT WEBPAGE REGARDING DETOURS (EX. 2012)
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the “Microsoft webpage regarding
`
`Detours” under FRE 401, 402, and 703. Patent Owner improperly relies on Ex.
`
`2012 to support the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the 2005
`
`timeframe, but the Microsoft webpage was retrieved on July 12, 2016. Ex. 2012.
`
`The webpage also states, “Established: January 16, 2002.” Ex. 2012. However, the
`
`webpage appears to have been updated since that time and the webpage provides
`
`no indication when the information cited by Patent Owner was published on the
`
`website. Accordingly, Ex. 2012 is irrelevant and not the type of evidence
`
`reasonably relied upon by a person of ordinary skill during the relevant time
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`period. The Microsoft webpage regarding Detours is also inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802, and lacks authentication under FRE 901.
`
`VI. STACKOVERFLOW WEBPAGE (EX. 2013)
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the “Stackoverflow webpage” under
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 703. Patent Owner improperly relies on the Stackoverflow
`
`webpage to support the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the 2005
`
`timeframe, but the webpage was retrieved on July 12, 2016, and the information on
`
`the webpage is dated 2010 and 2012. Ex. 2013. Accordingly, it is irrelevant and
`
`not the type of evidence reasonably relied upon by a person of ordinary skill during
`
`the relevant time period. The Stackoverflow webpage is also inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802, and lacks authentication under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2016
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 19,
`
`2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, was served by filing this document through the Patent
`
`Review Processing System and via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: (212) 715-7502
`Fax: (212) 715-8302
`jprice@kramerkevin.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`
`
`
`990 Marsh Road
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`Phone: (650) 752-1712
`
`
`Fax: (650) 752-1812
`
`
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`Michael Kim
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650.397.9567
`mkim@finjan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`134365455 v2